I met Lord Monckton at a luncheon in Melbourne during his recent tour of Australia. I was surprised journalists here had not thought to ask him how his views on climate science had evolved. Why had he become so interested in climate science fraud and its political implications? The Q and A that follows is the result of an interview conducted with him after his return to Scotland on February 15.

I began by asking him what had started him on the road to his YouTube-covered speech exposing the draft Copenhagen treaty:

Minchin: What first made you suspect the “climate change” research of recent decades was skewed?

Monckton: The CEO of a boutique finance house in the City of London asked me to have a look at “global warming” because his analysts could not decide whether it was real or not. I first realized something was wrong when I wanted to find out how to convert radiative forcings in Watts per square meter to temperature in Kelvin, but not once in 1,000 pages did the IPCC’s 2001 science assessment report reveal the existence of the Stefan-Boltzmann radiative-transfer equation, without which one cannot even begin the calculation. So obscurantist was the IPCC’s methodology for determining climate sensitivity that it took me two years to research the underlying equations, some of which I had to derive for myself. A scientific establishment that was confident of its results would have explained the matter clearly and concisely.

Minchin: What do you predict will be the outcome of the current wave of revelations about the quality of IPCC research?

Monckton: Governments, banks, businesses, environmental groups, academics, scientists, schoolteachers, and journalists have all nailed their colors so firmly to the mast of the IPCC’s sinking ship that they will do their level best to keep it afloat for as long as they can get away with it. The reaction of “Ed” Miliband, the Climate Change Minister in the UK, is typical. As soon as he learned of the IPCC’s defalcations, he announced a war on climate skeptics. Gradually, the opinion polls will continue to move against the IPCC as its absurdly exaggerated predictions continue to fail. Eventually, nations already hard-pressed as the second, deeper and longer trough of the double-dip recession sets in will decide that stopping the massive leakage of taxpayers’ cash represented by the climate nonsense would be a good idea. How long this process will take, I cannot say.

Minchin: How did science go so wrong on this issue? What caused the corruption of the scientific establishment?

Like this:

Related

Beneath the visible tip of Climategate iceberg lies decades of filth, data manipulation, and deceit by the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) and the research agencies whose budgets are reviewed by NAS – NASA and DOE.

Specifically, many NASA-funded measurements since the 1969 Apollo Mission showed that the Sun is not a ball of Hydrogen (H) heated by H-fusion: Mass fractionation in the Sun selectively moves lightweight elements (H and He) and the lightweight isotopes of each element to the solar surface.

DOE became part of the deception by reporting that solar neutrinos from H-fusion magically oscillate away before we can detect them.

What a sad state of affairs for science,
Oliver K. Manuel
Emeritus Professor of
Nuclear & Space Sciences
Former NASA PI for Apollo